Yanco Battery Energy Storage System

5966

Redacted

24/09/2025

Object

Email

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Yanco Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) project due to serious concerns about its proximity to prime agricultural land, major water sources, and the long-term risks of environmental contamination and fire hazards. The proposed site is directly adjacent to an irrigation channel, just across the road from the Gogeldrie Branch Canal, and only a few kilometres from the Murrumbidgee River. This area is vital to the rice industry and other food production sectors. The installation of large-scale lithium or flow battery systems near these water bodies presents unacceptable risks of chemical leaching, including PFAS contamination, which could enter our soil, surface water, and groundwater systems. These substances are persistent, toxic, and extremely difficult to remove once released. Any contamination would directly threaten the integrity of our agricultural exports, the safety of our food supply, and the health of downstream communities. In addition to these environmental concerns, BESS facilities present a known fire risk. Battery fires—particularly those involving lithium-ion technologies—are extremely difficult to extinguish and can burn for days, releasing toxic smoke and contaminated run-off. International examples include the Moorabool BESS fire (Victoria, 2021), which burned for three days and forced the suspension of the entire project; the Arizona BESS explosion (USA, 2019), which injured first responders; and the Daejeon battery fire in South Korea (2020), where several large-scale battery installations caught fire, leading to national reviews and stricter safety protocols. Once burning, these battery systems can release hydrofluoric acid, dioxins, and other hazardous materials into the air and water—especially dangerous when located so close to irrigation channels and the Murrumbidgee River system. A fire at the proposed Yanco site could have catastrophic environmental consequences for surrounding farmland, aquifers, and ecosystems. Australia’s energy transition must be carefully managed, not rushed in a way that jeopardises critical agricultural zones, rural livelihoods, and public safety. Industrial-scale BESS facilities belong in industrial or remote buffer zones—not in close proximity to food-growing regions, homes, and major waterways. For these reasons, I strongly urge the IPCN to reject the Yanco BESS proposal.

5971

Redacted

24/09/2025

Object

Email

Dear IPCN, As a landowner reliant on the Murrumbidgee River, I absolutely object to ACEnergy’s Yanco BESS plan as it is a reckless, irreversible mistake in the making - which must be roundly condemned on all grounds — agricultural, environmental, engineering, economic, regulatory, ethical, and national security. The proposed Yanco Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) represents a grossly irresponsible and profoundly dangerous development that threatens to: •Undermine regional food production, •Pollute irreplaceable agricultural soils and water, •Jeopardise public health and safety, •Subvert Australia’s national energy security, and •Drain taxpayer resources for zero tangible benefit to the grid or community. AGRICULTURAL VANDALISM DISGUISED AS ‘PROGRESS’ This 107 hectare site near vital irrigation channels, in close proximity to the Murrumbidgee River and across the road from Gogeldrie Branch Canal - lies within an intensively farmed rural landscape, rich in productive soils, irrigation systems, and critical watercourses. Despite this, the proponent’s, consultants and advocates have attempted to downgrade the capability of the land and demonise its position adjacent to the sewerage works solely to permit industrialisation — a manipulation that ignores the observable practical reality of suitability for sustained, high-yield agriculture. This plan is based on lies not due diligence! By greenlighting a toxic BESS on this land, the project seeks to eliminate arable productivity in favour of hazardous industrial sprawl. A FIRE HAZARD IN A HIGHLY PRODUCTIVE FARMING ZONE Lithium-ion battery storage systems are notoriously fire-prone, with a growing body of evidence showing thermal runaway events triggering chemical fires, explosions, and toxic smoke clouds. Rural fire services have no viable tools to manage large-scale battery fires, which can burn for days and re-ignite without warning. Yanco BESS is unacceptably planned in an area surrounded by pastures, sheds, homes, livestock, and bushland - in close proximity to Murrumbidgee Valley National Park — yet there is no comprehensive risk management plan, no third-party fire safety audit, and no proven ability to contain the consequences of a battery combustion event. PERMANENT TOXIC CHEMICAL POLLUTION RISK The battery components proposed for this project are known to contain and release: PFAS and related Bis-FASI compounds (classified as forever chemicals), Fluorinated solvents, corrosive electrolytes, and heavy metals. Once these compounds leak into the soil or water, they cannot be removed. Their half-lives stretch across generations, and even microscopic contamination can lead to long-term bioaccumulation in plants, animals, and humans. It is utterly unacceptable that no independent environmental toxicology analysis has been conducted. Poisonous ‘renewables’ are being approved on blind optimism and corporate assurances, not verifiable science. ENGINEERING FANTASY WITHOUT SYNCHRONOUS INERTIA The BESS proposal rests on the false claim that it can enhance grid reliability and security. In reality: •It offers no synchronous inertia, essential for grid stabilisation, •It cannot generate electricity — only store and re-release it (inefficiently), •It depends entirely on intermittent, weather-dependent inputs, and •It provides no guaranteed power supply during blackouts or demand spikes. Any grid engineer worth their salt knows that BESS facilities do not make unreliable ‘renewables’ reliable. They simply delay the volatility. This is window-dressing, not energy security. ☠️PUBLIC HEALTH RISKS POISON - DELIBERATELY UNADDRESSED☠️ Despite the clear health dangers of BESS chemicals no human health impact assessment has been presented. Where is the modelling for: •Inhalation exposure from toxic smoke during fire events? •Long-term groundwater leaching into nearby irrigation systems? •Soil absorption of lithium salts and battery breakdown residues? The public is being kept deliberately in the dark, with no medical or toxicological oversight and zero long-term health studies required by the SEARs. This is grossly irresponsible neglect masquerading as planning. A MONEY PIT FOR TAXPAYERS, A BONANZA FOR FOREIGN DEVELOPERS The developers and their investors will reap short-term profits via subsidies, rebates, and regulatory fast-tracking — while local ratepayers, farmers, and residents inherit the long-term contamination, fire risk, grid instability and increasingly, unaffordable costs. This project creates no meaningful jobs, no long term community benefit, and no energy advantage — yet it drains the public purse to bankroll a boondoggle built from imported, slave-labour components with no Australian manufacturing or innovation. SUPPLY CHAINS TAINTED BY SLAVERY AND GEOPOLITICAL HOSTILITY The lithium-ion components used in this BESS will almost certainly come from CCP-controlled Chinese corporations with known links to: •Forced Slave Labour, •Environmentally destructive mining operations, and •State-controlled battery management systems with remote access capability. This project effectively outsources Australia’s energy resilience to the hostile CCP regime — whilst the Federal Government pretends to spend billions on military deterrents regarding China. The hypocrisy is staggering! A REGULATORY SYSTEM IN DISARRAY The Large-Scale Solar Energy Guideline (2022) — used to justify this proposal — is deeply flawed, factually misleading, and systemically biased in favour of developers. It has never been subject to: •Parliamentary review, •Scientific peer review, •Independent public health scrutiny. And yet, IPCN and NSW Planning continue to use this broken document as a rubber-stamp enabler of large-scale ecological and economic harm. Planning and environmental assessment in NSW has become an administrative farce — an unholy alliance between lobbyists, consultants, and political insiders! NATIONAL SECURITY NIGHTMARE By entrusting critical battery storage infrastructure to a supply chain dominated by the Chinese Communist Party, Australia is embedding a Trojan horse into the very heart of its grid. There are credible concerns that these systems will be: •Remotely disabled, •Deliberately overheated, or •Used for surveillance and interference. The fact that no national security risk assessment has been made public is a scandal in itself. This is not just short-sighted — it is an existential threat! THIS PROJECT MUST BE STOPPED — FOR GOOD REASON The Yanco BESS is not a clean energy solution — it is an ecocidal-industrial disaster, a public health timebomb, and a betrayal of Australia’s food-producing regions and sovereign energy future. This BESS must be refused outright on the grounds of: •Agricultural destruction and falsified land classification, •Unaddressed contamination and health risks, •Unproven, unneeded, and unsafe energy claims, •National security vulnerabilities through CCP supply chains, •Irresponsible regulatory conduct and community betrayal. A FULL INDEPENDENT REVIEW An immediate moratorium, independent public inquiry - Royal Commission into: •The true impacts of large-scale BESS, wind, and solar projects, •The cumulative damage to regional food systems and water supplies, •The ethics and legality of foreign supply chains, •The fire and toxic exposure risks to rural communities. No approval should be granted without independent engineering, toxicology, and cyber-security assessments, as well as full and informed community consent — which has not and cannot be obtained under current conditions. ‘Forever chemicals’ used in Lithium Ion Batteries Threaten Environment, Research Finds | Lithium-ion batteries | The Guardian 14/7/24 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jul/14/forever-chemicals-lithium-ion-batteries-environment Commonwealth PFAS BAN effectively banned the import, use and manufacture of some of the more prominent types of PFAS (PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS) from 1 July 2025. Some types have been found to be toxic to human health and the environment. Safety of Grid Scale Lithium-ion Battery Energy Storage Systems “The scale of Li-ion BESS energy storage envisioned at “mega scale” energy farms is unprecedented and requires urgent review. The explosion potential and the lack of engineering standards to prevent thermal runaway may put control of “battery fires” beyond the knowledge, experience and capabilities of local Fire and Rescue Services. BESS present special hazards to fire-fighters….” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352158070_Safety_of_Grid_Scale_Lithium-ion_Battery_Energy_Storage_Systems https://localnewsmatters.org/2025/02/13/environmental-tests-reveal-elevated-levels-of-toxic-metals-since-moss-landing-battery-fire/ Yours Sincerely,

5976

Redacted

24/09/2025

Object

Email

Photo 29.pdf (PDF, 3.75 MB)

Email Submission_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 918.66 KB)

5936

New South Wales 2650

24/09/2025

Object

Website

Concerns: - Fire and explosion risks plus re-ignition - Pollution and contamination of surrounding land and water sources should a fire occur. - Health risks due to toxic smoke should a fire occur. - No benefit to the community. Economic or social. Benefits only big business. - Environmental impact at the site, surrounding the site and in other countries that manufacture the equipment. - BESS manufacture supports slave & child labour in developing nations. - Visual impact to rural area. The introduction of large industrial scale BESS will change the character of the area. - Carbon footprint- while BESS can help integrate renewable energy, its own production and operation contributes to carbon emissions. - Lack of community consultation. BESS are the asbestos of the future. There is nothing green, renewable or cheap about it. Without subsidies from the Australian taxpayer, these projects would have been scrapped years ago. The real cost to the environment and the health of the nation will reveal itself in the years to come. The use of slave labour in countries such as China is well documented yet still the supply of Solar panels and Battery Energy Storage Systems are imported from these regions. It needs to stop.

5941

National Rational Energy Network

New South Wales 2705

24/09/2025

Object

Website

Please see attached submission on behalf of the National Rational Energy Network (NREN). The submission raises serious concerns about the Yanco BESS, including: PFAS contamination risks to soil, water, crops, and livestock. Hazard and fire risks with no validated modelling or enforceable safeguards. Groundwater and floodplain vulnerability, with pathways into the Murrumbidgee irrigation system. Cumulative impacts from multiple nearby projects, amounting to industrialisation by stealth of the Riverina food bowl. Decommissioning failures, leaving future generations with stranded toxic infrastructure. Social division, inequity, and procedural unfairness in consultation. Breaches of Commonwealth, NSW, and international statutory obligations. Outcome sought: refusal of consent. If approval were nevertheless contemplated, strict enforceable conditions must apply, including PFAS disclosure, independent UL 9540A fire testing, secured decommissioning bonds, and community benefit-sharing mechanisms. For full details, refer to the attached document.

NREN_Yanco_BESS_Submission.pdf (PDF, 137.9 KB)

5946

New South Wales 2700

24/09/2025

Object

Website

I live in the Yanco area. As a nearby resident there has been little said about this proposal anywhere. There was a meeting last week in Yanco where you had to registered to have a one on one conversation about objections. Only those in the know knew about this meeting with the IPCN. Most of the local residents in the Yanco/ Leeton area are unaware of the Yanco BESS or the other two BESS ready in the sidelines. There should be a well advertised campaign to give locals the opportunity to be given knowledge of what the project is about, the benefits and the risks.. Residents should also be given the negatives of the project from an independent body. The project is located in the heart of the Riverina MIA, near the main branch of the Gogeldrie Canal and not far from the Murrumbidgee River. It is also right next to a sewerage plant, with a substation next to it and then the canal. What does this really mean for the environment?? Chemical leaks from thermal runaway, risk of fires and explosions, visual and noise impacts, potential electromagnetic interference. What cost to the community? What benefits??? This should have been openly discussed. The initial investment required can be a significant barrier to their adoption. Ongoing maintenance and potential repairs add to operational expenses. Batteries don't last forever with their performance declining. Do the costs outweigh the benefits. A risk with lithium-ion batteries is thermal runaway, a self sustaining chain reaction that can lead to overheating, fires or explosions, with potential health impacts from emissions. Are the small local Rural Firebrigade prepared for these risks. With the Murrumbidgee River National Park right on the doorstep, excess fire risk is a danger and concern. Damaged battery casings can leak toxic fluid, leading to corrosion, burns and toxic fumes. With the canal close by any risk of a toxic fluid leak should be considered, especially due to the large scale production in the Riverina relying on the canals and channel systems to carry irrigation water. Electromagnetic interference can be caused by large scale BESS, nearby homes and public spaces are at risk of this. What exactly will this mean for people and their health?? BESS also generate noise which would be a concern for nearby residents. With a lifespan of approximately 10 years, does the high costs of initial setup , limited lifespan and efficiency losses during charging and discharging warrant a BESS in a high risk environmental area. One of the biggest disadvantages of BESS is the intolerence to extreme temperatures. Yanco sits in the Riverina- an area known for extreme summer and winter temperatures, isn't that a risk factor worth considering. The most common BESS manufacturing defects of 2024 are- 28% of systems had fire detection and suppression defects- critical for preventing runaway fires 19% had faulty auxiliary circuit panels- risking control system failure, 15% had thermal management defects- increasing the risk of overheating, 6% failed capacity tests- meaning they couldn't deliver the energy they were designed for (CEA May 2025 reports). Clearly most people in the Yanco/Leeton community aren't aware of these negative aspects as they would have gone to the meeting with the IPCN. One would have to ask why isn't there more detailed advertisement of the BESS? Batteries are still assumed to be the only option when thinking of renewable energy storage. Why aren't we discussing other options instead of committing to a non viable long term solution. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jul/14/forever-chemicals-lithium-ion-batteries-environment https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=PAE-76030487%2120240925T221452.212%20GMT

5956

New South Wales 2705

24/09/2025

Object

Website

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Further to giving evidence before the ICPN on 19/9/25, I mentioned there that it had been reported by Reuters in mid-May this year that the US had found kill-switches embedded in the componentry of “renewa-bull” towers and panels etc. These sensors in transformers etc would enable the CCP to shut down our power grid remotely. I emphasised that this is a matter of National Security. Since that hearing, which backs up what I said, it has been reported that an ex cyber-security adviser to the Australian government/PM has warned us of further national security issues: • https://www.3aw.com.au/cyber-security-expert-warns-australians-about-high-risk-chinese-made-evs/ • https://www.news.com.au/technology/motoring/on-the-road/china-could-make-evs-explode-cyber-expert-warns/news-story/2d29b6e3474d85dc64e8bdcb0995fbec Since the meeting on the 19th, as I did before, I asked around of people, and NO-BODY I asked had even heard of the Yanco BESS, let alone what BESS meant!!! Blank stares all around. I put it to the meeting that in ALL these energy roll-out cases, companies should be made to letterbox the WHOLE LGA’s and for that matter, surrounding LGA’s, and appear at a PUBLIC meeting where EVERYONE can air their concerns, and the whole community can hear what the pros and cons are and consequently make up their own minds. At the moment, they have no idea it’s even happening. Our area is one of the most productive agricultural areas in Australia, contributing greatly to the national GDP. The BESS is in the heart of prime agricultural land. I voiced my concern about microflakes from the most toxic substance known to the Swedish EPA, Bisphenol A from the wind turbine blades being blown across the state. Likewise, the PFAS/PFOS from the solar panels getting strewn across the land, and filtering into our ARTESIAN BASIN water. I have not heard others worrying about this, but it is of MAJOR CONCERN. The underground water will be contaminated by these systems, and we are DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT. From their own EIS report, we can see the aquifer depth is 40m, and a further 400m, and contamination would affect not just the Murrumbidgee groundwater, but the Lachlan Fold groundwater as well. This is a MAJOR CONCERN. In the Premise (consultancy group) EIS for the Yanco BESS, it’s noted on p105: The development site is identified within the groundwater vulnerability mapping under the LLEP, which aims to ensure key groundwater systems are maintained and protected from depletion or contamination. The development site is located in the Lower Murrumbidgee Alluvium, which is considered to be a highly productive alluvial aquifer. A 5km buffer around the site showed approximately two thirds of the buffer were within the Lower Murrumbidgee Shallow Groundwater Source, with the remaining third within the Lachlan Fold MDB Shallow Groundwater Source. The Lower Murrumbidgee Alluvium Shallow Aquifer extends to a depth of 40m below surface and generally comprises yellow/brown sands and clays. The Lower Murrumbidgee Alluvium Deep Aquifer underlies the shallow aquifer and in some areas extends a further 400m below surface. The deep aquifer generally comprises grey to white sans (sands) with some clay. Groundwater in both the shallow and deep aquifers flow east to west. We are giving NO CONSIDERATION to the contaminants infiltrating our groundwater sources. We are giving NO CONSIDERATION to the cumulative impacts to our Murrumbidgee River Catchment as we individually “approve” these industrial scale establishments one by one. They stack up almost side-by-side – a fact conveniently ignored by governments and unknown to most people. We are giving NO CONSIDERATION to the fact that we only need a hail-storm smashing solar panel glass and that paddock can NEVER be used again for grazing, lest the sheep/cattle end up with cut and bleeding mouths on account of the glass/shards, which can never be removed successfully, and may even be blown over to neighbouring properties. Not only that, while domestic livestock may be removed, what about the wildlife. Kangaroos and all other wildlife grazing there will be cut around the mouths and there will be no veterinary assistance of any kind because they are wild. They will just be infected and die, but we think this is OK?? It is not OK. This is prime agricultural land, and it should be preserved as such. There is no evidence that our energy costs have decreased. We may have been given a subsidy, but the actual power bills in everyone’s case, have risen exponentially BECAUSE of the Ruin-a-bull lies we’ve been told. The evidence for that has been in our power bills, and small and large businesses all over Australia have closed because they cannot afford their power bills. I put many arguments to this end in my spoken submission on the 19th, and should not need to reinforce it here. The liability is going to be horrendous – again, I spoke about insurance companies asking questions already about whether farmed stock is grazed near these establishments. We are being lied to by governments about this, and Aussies are being set up to take the fall and foot the bill – again – and again – as they already are with higher power bills. In the water sphere, our governments are setting up to do “over bank watering” under the MDB Plan because apparently our red gums which have survived for 200 years on their own, now need watering. This is going to exacerbate the toxic contamination into our waterways. Justice Natalie Charlesworth in the Barossa Gas case was scathing about the trumped up rubbish dished up as “scientific evidence”, and we should be cogniscant of this fact, because this is what the corporate conglomerates are getting away with, with the blessing of our governments as they trample all over the people. Some comments by Justice Charlesworth about the integrity of the process: • “It is conduct far flung from proper scientific method, and falls short of an expert’s obligation to this Court.” • “confection ….. made up evidence — so lacking in integrity that no weight can be placed on it” PLEASE do not give the Yanco BESS the go-ahead. We are being subjected to similar lies by similar companies to that which Justice Charlesworth’s comments apply. Our ENERGY BILL$ ARE RI$ING, the costs of the transmission roll-out is rising, landowners are the ones being left with the ultimate liability, and governments keep legislating to take away property rights to enable this roughshod trampling of farming families and communities. In decades to come, rather than a saviour, it will be the decimation of regional towns due to the toxicity of the equipment and the unaffordable power bills – all because our governments and corporations are ignoring their own NATIONAL ELECTRICITY RULES, and operating unlawfully OUTSIDE of these rules. These rules state we must have an energy grid and service that is secure, reliable, safe and affordable. In addition to governments acting unlawfully, we do not need the toxic substances from these “Ruin-a-bulls” which will most certainly be the “asbestos of the future” contaminating our soil, waterways, and underground water. It should be a no-brainer. Jeanine Bird Leeton

5961

New South Wales 2705

24/09/2025

Object

Website

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I object to the Yanco BESS as the associated toxicity associated with renewable energy is hazardous and will contaminate our regional environment either by wind, or by seeping into our acquifers. Further, BESS’s can and do catch fire and cause toxic smoke causing asthma and asthma-like health hazards in the short term, and who knows what health risks in the longer term. Just as asbestos took years to be “proven” after it emerged among workers in associated industries, these toxic outcomes will be our “asbestos of the future”. We can stop it now. I am concerned at the huge risk of Thermal runaway – if there are summer fires, they will go for miles and could cause bush-fires like the Black Friday fires. Smoke travels for miles, so we will all potentially be the recipients of toxic smoke from these industrialised so-called renewables. Not only that, due to the cumulative stacking of these individually approved sites (wind, solar and BESS), more than one has the potential to catch fire on a hot summer’s day. Fire authorities are not allowed near them and many can’t be put out, and just have to be left. Governments are asking for huge claims for PFAS/PFOS and Bisphenol A contamination caused by the toxicity and leaching from infrastructure, and also the toxic smoke in a fire event. Livestock and wildlife will be eating glass shards as well, causing terrible damage to their mouths and throats, and cutting them open from inside so they bleed to death in a terrible and unimaginable way. This is cruelty to animals, letalone what it’s doing to the environment and humans. So-called “renewables” are forcing our Electricity Prices UP, contrary to the lies we are being told. It is NOT better or CHEAPER than coal-fired base-load power by any stretch. This is also a grave national security issue when our services and assets are owned or controlled from offshore. My wife gave a verbal submission on my behalf on the 19th instant, and our concerns were outlined very well in that submission. Since then, however, there has been a warning from a cybersecurity expert about the ability of a foreign country being able to disable or explode EV’s and internet connected devices made in China, which backs up the evidence given on the 19th where Reuters reported in May about the kill-switches found in components of “renewable” energy products. These sensors would allow our power grid to be switched off remotely, and if we were to be engaged in war, we SHOULD NOT allow a critical service such as our energy to be controlled by a foreign nation. Grant Bird Leeton

5931

Redacted

23/09/2025

Object

Website

Ref: SSD-67478479 Yanco Battery Energy Storage System ACEnergy Pty Ltd Level 3, 689 Burke Rd, Camberwell VIC 3124 Development of a 250 MW / 1100 MWh battery energy storage system and associated infrastructure and connection works I pass comments re the EIS which decidedly biased in favor of the proponent, which is only natural as the proponent pays the bill. No independent EIS here and it is not subject to independent analysis as the government is desperate for this and other renewable projects to proceed at any cost. The presentations are presented in a such a way as to point out the real and not so real positives of the project whilst many legitimate concerns are glossed over, minimised, or ignored in an effort not to “stir up the locals” by withholding information, minimal public consultation, presenting minimal media information, that only presents the project in a positive light, in short, not a balanced, HONEST explanation, in other words, obtaining and proceeding by stealth! Even the objector numbers are virtually ignored. It is very arrogant of the Dept to make comments about the locals when the locals aware of the project. Notwithstanding that there were 64 submissions with 63 objections, which the Department immediately assumes that there were no local objections, thus proving the lack of public consultation with the locals. Sixty three objections be they a 100k or 1000k, local or otherwise is quite a number to be treated as having no value, The Department does not understand that this type of energy production has no future. Some of these objectors are engineers that can calculate the futility of this taxpayer subsidised, guaranteed investment return to the overseas proponents. Good deal? For the investor, yes, for Australia, no! We are fed the line that the project can power 85,000 homes, very impressive, but how long can the site power the 85,000 homes? Minutes? An hour? A day? Can it power 85,000 homes overnight? What is the actual teal return to the community? If there is any return, can it match the economic loss to the community? The reported pitiful three million dollars does even begin to compensate for the economic, and social losses. How much of the battery recharge is from the grid? How much of the battery recharge is from the renewable sector of energy production? Can you even measure the true contribution of each source? Where is the water sourced from? What measures for water are in place when we have another millennial type drought? Who will attend a fire incident? I have been a fire brigade member for over 45 years but I and many colleagues will not be attending an incident on a BESS thermal fire or a solar generator, as dealing fires is very dangerous and the fumes from the burning batteries can be lethal, hence my comments re the school, the residences and the village. Copied form the EIS: Over the next 23 years (expected lifespan of the Project), the climate is projected to change, potentially resulting in more days of higher fire danger than previously experienced, and projected FDR exceeding current levels (Douglas, G. 2017). Planning for long term infrastructure should include consideration of the potential for increased fire danger and potentially higher fire frequencies. The BESS development site has a total area of approximately 10.3 hectares of development footprint (in which the BESS compound covers approximately 8 hectares) and will be located towards the northeastern boundary of the host lots. The development site is currently used for agricultural activities and primary production. NOTE: Copied from the EIS: 1.4 Related Development A review of the Leeton Shire Council DA tracker on the 6th of August 2024 for the site address of 120 Houghton Road returned no search results for past development applications on the site. The applicant is not aware of any existing development consents related to the development site It would appear that the Department has intentionally overlooked or did not search well enough to come up with this project which, according to the link, is in the process of preparing an EIS. LSC is aware of this project also. Comet Park BESS Samsung C & T Renewable Energy Australia Proposed 150 MW Battery Energy Storage System Link - https://www.cometparkbess.com/ This project would be side by side with the ACE development and yet it is given only a passing mention – see proposal map. If this project is allowed, the foot print becomes approximately 18 ha of land lost to production and damaged forever by these batteries and my range of concerns only increase with the possibility of this project proceeding. Some key points minimised, glossed over. or ignored by the EIS: • the YAHS, which is four prevailing downwind kilometers away • food producing arable land next door, including YAHS land, • residences less than a kilometer • the village of Yanco, 1500 metres distance. • The source of water • The true economic loss This moral aspect is not even mentioned: The lip service that all governments, supporters, and proponents ignore, is the human cost of producing the materials for these projects. They conveniently ignore the international conventions concerning slave and child labor from which the greatest majority of the raw materials are sourced. There is little consideration given to the “clean up” at end of life of these projects, the irreversible soil damage done to arable food producing soils. JUST FOLLOW THE DOLLAR is the only criteria! A very important consideration that is conveniently ignored is who pays for the clean up? Where and how are the expired components treated? Recycled? Can they be recycled? Buried? What is done with the millions of tonnes of concrete and massive steel reinforcement? Not applicable to this fiasco, but wind generator turbines need gear box oil changes, having spills contaminating the surrounds, transport of used and new replacement oils. The larger turbines use about 3600 litres of lubricating oil that is drained and replaced about every 9 to 16 months, and 4500 litres of transformer oil, which is periodically tested and changed if the tests how a problem. How do the affected communities survive or even porsper? The loss of population as the vacuum left by the families who are forced to move elsewhere, affecting school, government services, loss of agricultural production and the social fabric. The whole renewable concept is basic “pie in the sky” amid a world of braying donkeys screaming the Chicken Little equivalent of – “the sky is falling”, frightening children, frightening those who do not or cannot analyse the concept of this folly. Sure, a measured approach to renewable is to be commended but not this headlong rush that will destroy our nation. Go figure!

Yanco-BESS-ACEnergy redacted.pdf (PDF, 329.5 KB)

5881

Rainforest Reserves Australia

Queensland 4870

06/09/2025

Object

Website

The Riverina region of New South Wales is one of Australia’s most productive and culturally significant landscapes. It sustains critical national food production, supports intricate groundwater systems, and is home to unique ecosystems and Aboriginal cultural heritage sites of enduring value. Generations of farming communities, First Nations custodians, and regional families have shaped this landscape through stewardship, resilience, and care. The Riverina is not expendable — it is essential. The proposed Yanco Battery Energy Storage System (SSD-67478479), located near Yanco and in close proximity to the Yanco Delta Wind Farm, represents a serious and imminent threat to the region’s ecological stability, agricultural capacity, and public safety. Together, these projects would industrialise a region that underpins national food security and regional identity, while introducing permanent risks: PFAS contamination, microplastic dispersion, bushfire hazards, groundwater disruption, and destruction of habitat for endangered and migratory species. This submission presents a formal and detailed legal objection to the project. It outlines multiple breaches of federal and state legislation, including the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW), and others. It also highlights procedural failings, including the disaggregation of the BESS from the associated wind farm, in breach of statutory requirements for cumulative impact assessment. The Yanco BESS is part of a wider pattern of unlawful development occurring under the accelerated framework of the NSW Renewable Energy Zones. The government’s failure to enforce environmental safeguards has been compounded by recent and proposed legislative amendments designed to weaken oversight — including proposed rollbacks of both federal and NSW environmental statutes. Public trust is further eroded by astroturfing tactics used to simulate local support, while communities with direct exposure to the risks are excluded from genuine consultation. This submission puts the Independent Planning Commission and relevant decision-makers formally on notice. Should this project be approved in its current form, it will likely constitute jurisdictional error, failure to consider mandatory relevant considerations, and breach of statutory duties under Commonwealth and NSW law. If such an outcome eventuates, it is highly likely that affected parties, community stakeholders, or public interest litigants will seek judicial review and other legal remedies before the NSW Land and Environment Court and the Federal Court of Australia. This submission has been prepared to establish the evidentiary and legal foundation for such proceedings, should they become necessary. The law, the region, and the public interest all demand the same outcome: the Yanco Battery Energy Storage System must be refused.

Yanco Battery Energy Storage System.pdf (PDF, 423.89 KB)

5871

Future Smart Strategies

Western Australia 6004

05/09/2025

Support

Website

Submission to the Independent Planning Commission - Yanco Battery Energy Storage System Summary: Many objections to the Yanco battery project originate from individuals and groups located more than 100 km from the site, rather than from local residents. A majority of these submissions rely on misinformation, conspiracy theories, climate change denial, or generalized complaints that lack support from peer-reviewed evidence or local context. I provide this submission as a globally recognised authority and expert on clean technology. 1. Noise Versus Signal: Source and Substance of Objections • Local Support: I note that there are no objections from residents within five kilometres of the project, and few concerns from those directly affected by the development. • Long-Distance and Anonymous Objections: Over 90% of objections are submitted anonymously or by people who are not local. Many reference non-peer-reviewed sources with known biases against climate action (such as Murdoch media and the Global Warming Policy Foundation). • Content Review: Most objections are based on unproven claims—such as calling the project an "unreliable experiment," warning of "energy poverty," or labelling it a "swindle." Many submissions repeat climate change denial, like claiming there is "no verified scientific basis for CO2 reduction." Such arguments represent "zombie data": repeatedly debunked myths that persist due to ideology, not evidence. 2. Specific Claims Addressed • Grid Reliability: Several submissions predict blackouts or unreliable power due to batteries and renewables. However, peer-reviewed data from AEMO and the Clean Energy Council show that most reliability issues arise from ageing coal-fired generators. In contrast, batteries help stabilize the grid by responding quickly to faults and frequency changes. • Cost Concerns: Claims that batteries will create "energy poverty" are not supported by Australian or global market data. Recent studies demonstrate that large-scale batteries actually lower peak prices and promote competition, benefitting consumers when properly integrated. • Health, Safety, and Environmental Impacts: The project is situated near existing infrastructure, most particularly a substation, in an industrial zone with minimal added impact on the environment or public health. Modern battery storage systems use advanced safety measures that far exceed older technologies. Peer-reviewed research indicates low, manageable risks for nearby communities and wildlife when best practices are in place. • Climate Denial and Misinformation: The scientific consensus affirms both the dangers of climate change and the need to reduce emissions. Arguments denying the necessity of CO2 reduction ignore authoritative analyses by many, including the IPCC, CSIRO, and BoM. • Electric Vehicle Concerns: Fears about EV fire hazards, battery waste, and related issues are contradicted by international insurance data, safety standards, and policy experience within Australian cities. 3. Planning and Policy Considerations • Local versus Remote Interests: Projects with strong community backing and few direct local objections should not be sidetracked by numerous non-local complaints, especially when those are based on recycled misinformation rather than site-specific risks. • Regulatory Precedent: Precedents show that permitting low-specificity, non-local, or mass-form objections to trigger major reviews can undermine evidence-based, community-focused planning processes. 4. Recommendation We urge the Commission to: • Give priority to high-quality, evidence-based submissions from local residents, especially those reflecting direct impacts. • Explicitly filter out objections that rely on misinformation or ideological arguments rather than current scientific evidence. • Uphold strict standards for public health, safety, and environmental review, but avoid letting broad, ideologically driven objections replace evidence-based local decision-making. Conclusion The Yanco battery project, as reviewed by the NSW Department of Planning and supported by the immediate local community, is grounded in evidence and offers benefits for grid stability and the energy transition. While all submissions should be respectfully considered, the Commission should distinguish between factual, locally relevant concerns and the recycled noise of "zombie data." Approving the project in line with departmental recommendations reflects the best available evidence and serves the public interest. Our Professor Ray Wills is available as a witness if required. Submitted for the sake of science, local benefit, and truth over noise.

Sep25 FSS Submission to IPC NSW_Redacted.pdf (PDF, 209.77 KB)

5876

New South Wales 2095

05/09/2025

Support

Website

I am writing as an individual working in engineering and product development to express my support for the Yanco battery project. The energy transition is paramount to slowing the global climate and biodiversity crisis. Australia has a unique opportunity to be a world leader in clean energy innovation, and projects like this are essential steps toward that goal. While I do not live near the proposed site, I believe such infrastructure serves the broader public interest. I also strongly support the need to acquire a social licence for energy projects—local community acceptance and engagement are vital for long-term success. It’s important to acknowledge that batteries introduce new safety requirements, such as training for local emergency services. However, they are not the toxic hazard some opponents claim. Battery recycling technologies already exist and are actively being developed, and the industry continues to improve safety standards and environmental performance. I encourage the Commission to consider the broader benefits of this project, including its contribution to grid reliability, renewable integration, and climate resilience. I also support the Commission in giving due consideration to any genuine local concerns that may impact social licence, while discarding remote objections that are scientifically unsubstantiated. Best Regards, S.